11-5547 Gas Processing White Paper

Process Modeling Innovations Achieve
Safer Operations and Reduced Compliance Risk

in Gas Processing
An Industry White Paper
Originally presented at the Gas Processors Association Convention, April 2014
By Ron Beck, Irina Rumyantseva, and Wilfried Mofor Aspen Technology, Inc.
2014 Aspen Technology, Inc. AspenTech, aspenONE, the Aspen leaf logo, the aspenONE logo, and OPTIMIZE are trademarks of Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.11-5547-0414
Safer Operations and Reduced Compliance Risk in Gas Processing
Abstract
Safety is crucial to Gas Processing and Gas Plant Operations, and has been one of the issues at the forefront of recent
innovations in modeling technologies to help companies optimize their systems and processes for safer performance. A
barrier to achieving optimal designs, from a safety point of view, has been the separate working and modeling
environments of different engineering specialists involved in the process design and the safety design of these systems.
New advancements have brought these environments together to enable companies to achieve optimization across
process, safety, and cost objectives. This paper explains how the innovative integration between process simulation,
dynamic analysis, and rigorous pressure safety valve (PSV) modeling has evolved to make processes inherently safer and
describes the benefits of the new PSV sizing features in process simulation to improve safety and optimize plant
operations. One can now perform relief valve design analysis, sizing, and documentation from within the process
simulation, making the workflow easier and faster than ever before.
1
Overview
Safety and environmental regulatory compliance is crucial to all aspects of Midstream and Gas Processing Operations.
Given the dynamic pace of gas production, combined with recent gathering and transportation expansion, the ability to
understand, forecast, and address safety and environmental risks has become an even greater critical success factor.
These growing requirements are driving innovations in modeling software to help organizations optimize their systems
and processes for safer performance and reduced regulatory risk.
This paper addresses several topics, including: (1) the ability to complete rigorous PSV studies within a process model
from performing relief valve design sizing and analysis to completing documentationmaking the process easier and
faster than ever before; (2) the close integration of flare system design with simulation models; and (3) easier-to-use
dynamic modeling, which enables engineers to avoid overdesign when considering safety, thereby conserving capital.
Finally, (4) to that end, new tools to evaluate economics from within these models, enabling the engineer to optimize
designs to achieve safety objectives, while simultaneously optimizing capital and operating costs.
Key Engineering Challenges

Overpressure protection systems design is a gating step in achieving safe plant designs. Overdesign of these systems can
also cause significant and unnecessary capital expense. Flare networks always constitute a large portion of the capital
budgets, and, once designed, the modification or expansion of flare networks can be a substantial capital cost factor.
Key design factors include:

Ensuring adequate overpressure protection system capacity
Avoiding overdesign to avoid extra capital expenditure
Considering all pressure relief sources and pathways in safety scenarios
Ensuring that design comprehensively covers all scenarios
Dynamic analysis of the relief system load over time during a worst-case incident
Documenting complete and accurate PSV design parameters
Re-rating and re-certifying of overpressure protection system under MOC
2
Considering Discharge Systems

Discharge systems consist of all the equipment used to handle excess gases during unplanned emergencies in process
operations. The main cause of required flow through discharge systems is overpressure emergencies. During these
instances, process equipment can discharge fluid to the atmosphere if the relieved fluid is not dangerous. However, most
systems in the petrochemical and petroleum industries hold hydrocarbons, which cannot be disposed to the atmosphere.
Instead, some excesses are either sent back into the process, to treatment facilities, or to a flare system to be burned
safely.
Flares are designed to be open at all times so that the process equipment is continually protected. Although they are not
required to act often, discharge systems need to be designed so that they act properly when needed. With safe and
effective burning of hazardous substances, flares provide an exit mechanism for relieved process fluid.
Steps in Analyzing Overpressure Protection

In order to analyze overpressure protection for a process, there are several steps. These include gathering and generating
information about equipment, finding relief loads and preliminary sizing of pressure relief devices, designing and rating the
discharge and flare systems, resizing and procurement of the pressure relief devices, and reviewing and maintaining
documentation.
Gathering and generating information is a multistep process. It includes identifying all equipment or systems that could
fail due to overpressure in a process, gathering information from the conceptual design phase, developing process models
or streams describing system conditions and fluid properties, deciding what material will go to the flare system and what
material will be disposed via other mechanisms (sewers, treatment facilities, etc.), and determining the type of relieving
devices necessary.
Finding the relief loads involves determining the excess flow produced by each overpressure scenario. Once this is
completed, the orifice size for each overpressure scenario must be calculated, along with identifying and analyzing all
relieving devices (i.e., multiple valve analysis). Preliminary line sizing should then be performed for the relief area
calculations and preliminary pressure drop calculations.
The next step involves designing and rating discharge systems. First, the discharge locations for each relief device must be
determined. The outlet lines for the relieving devices, as well as the flare tip, must also be designed and sized. This must
be done in the context of all of the enumerated safety scenarios. Consideration of the scenarios entails making sure that
each scenario is effectively served by the overpressure protection system or, put another way, identifying and analyzing
the worst case load for each relief valve as well as the entire system, collectively. To complete this, information must be
accrued about the outlet lines, and site verification must also be done. A flare analysis software package saves significant
time during this step.
Once the discharge systems have been fully designed and rated, pressure relief devices should be resized by obtaining
backpressure values from the flare system model. The relief devices can then be procured by sending process data to
vendors for more accurate information and recalculation of relief areas.
Relief device documentation must be reviewed and maintained for each scenario to ensure that the information is
sufficient. Also, the relief device documentation should be grouped along with simulation files for future use, should a
need arise.
3
Problems in Current Safety Analysis Workflow

Overall, gathering and generating information about process equipment, identifying relief loads and sizing pressure relief
devices, and designing and rating the discharge systems can be a simulation-intensive project. Up to 90% of the
information for the proper design and optimization of safety networks is generated during this step.
The resizing and procurement of pressure relief devices and the review and maintenance of documentation is also time
consuming, with up to 50% of the time dedicated specifically to documentation. In addition to maintaining the
documentation for future use, extensive documentation must be created so the engineers work can be understood by a
supervisor.
Additionally, rigorous relief device sizing methods are performed on an as-needed basis. In many companies, complex
spreadsheetswhich are difficult to use, maintain, and distribute company-wideare set up to handle relief device sizing.
Multiple methods are used within the same organization depending on which spreadsheet was generated by whom and
how it was shared.
Employing a spreadsheet method requires that significant time be spent copying and pasting values such as fluid
properties and flow rates from one tool to another to perform calculations. In addition, more time is devoted to entering
the inputs into different tools, with many errors reported in the transfer of information. Spreadsheets also offer no visual
analysis of overpressure contingencies.
The link between relief valve sizing and flare network design is also important. The integration between the relief load,
relief valve, and flare system design delivers a clear benefit. The safety scenarios are identified and analyzed during the
relief valve design task. Typically, in the traditional approach, the same safety scenarios are separately identified and
analyzed during the flare system design. The benefits of bringing together these two environments will be discussed in
more detail later.
Also, the models from which the loads and designs are based are usually steady state in nature. Dynamic modeling of
each safety scenario provides a more realistic view of the actual peak load, which helps further optimize operations.
Systematic Overpressure Protection Analysis

Size relief valves based
on safety scenarios
2
3
Design/rate flare system
1
Create process model and
model relief loads
Figure 1: The Overpressure Protection Safety Analysis Work Flow
4
Improving the Safety Analysis Workflow

In order to improve the current workflow, certain measures can be taken, including the merging of design and
overpressure protection steps to create inherently safer designs; the elimination of any walls between instrumentation,
process, and safety groups so they speak the same language; creating evergreen documentation; and providing easier
access to dynamic modeling to achieve realistic views of each scenario.
Merging the design and overpressure protection phases of a project allows for the process safety analysis to be performed
earlier in the design phase and for the reuse of models created at conceptual design or equipment design phases. By doing
this, engineers are able to evaluate overpressure contingencies for possible design reconfigurations to find the best and
safest alternatives, if they exist, and identify areas for capital cost savings.
By removing barriers between instrumentation, process, and safety groups, the manual transfer of information from one
group to the next is reduced and corporate governance and adherence to standards is simplified. Use of the same tools
between groups makes communication easier and more efficient, while the automation of information transfer avoids
errors and frustration.
Automatically maintained documentation keeps design notes within design tools for easy referencing and reuse, while
also ensuring that any modifications to each process are captured and updated. By automating the repetitive portions of
the process, engineers are able to focus their talents on process improvements.
Innovative equipment and tools that better protect relief systems help to further technology improvements for safety, as
well. New styles of relieving devices are being created by leading manufacturers and new, improved engineering software
packages help to enhance productivity and reduce mistakes. It is important to consider the longevity, usability, reputation,
and robustness of vendors and their solutions when evaluating products for implementation.
5
Recent Software Innovations

There have been significant enhancements to process simulators that have enabled companies to achieve safer operations
at the design stage. A number of recent innovations in the aspenONE engineering software package now enable
engineers to optimize conceptual design, equipment design, overpressure protection (such as PSV and rupture disk
sizing), and flare design and ratingall from one unified and compatible environment.
User interface innovation, based on research into the workflow used by process engineers, has provided a highly intuitive
environment where both new and experienced users can take advantage of simulators such as Aspen HYSYS. Coherent
simulation environments are intuitive and efficient, supporting process engineers who must construct a conceptual
design, as well as safety engineers who can avoid the details of process modeling and instead access detailed diagrams to
determine appropriate protection for overpressure contingencies. These same engineers can also rate and design flare and
discharge systems within the same environment. Instrumentation engineers can also access the product to find
documentation to keep up-to-date with sizing and design rationale for pressure safety valves in the system and construct
appropriate datasheets and calculation reports.
The documentation builder also auto-updates with each revision of the calculation or project notes, so that engineers only
must update the non-repetitive sections of the analysis.
Add PSVs to Process Model Specify PSV Restraints
Figure 2: The Safety Environment within the Aspen HYSYS process modeling system provides an extremely efficient approach for the process
engineer or safety specialist to design and rate pressure safety valves within the model.
Once the relief valves are designed, additional integration has been provided that automatically transfers each of the
safety scenarios, together with the associated relief valves, into the flare network design environment.
Additionally, usability advances have made it much simpler and more straightforward for the process modelers to conduct
dynamics studies of process designs. They can evaluate the potential impact of worst-case relief loads that can occur by
understanding the actual time sequencing of loads under each safety scenario.
6
Improved Workflow for Ovepressure Protection Design

2 Flare System Analyzer
Size relief valves models flare
Header 2 Con 2 Tip

Poe 1
Integrated within
simulation model
3 Stack
Con 3
Con 1
Header 3
1
Simulation modeling of equipment/plant
+ Dynamic modeling of maximum loads
Figure 3: Innovations support an optimized workflow for improved safety in gas processing.
Examples of Benefits Achieved

E&C organizations conduct overpressure protection analysis and, in particular, pressure safety valve (PSV) studies on a
regular basis, both during FEED and for clients and their operating plants. This aspect of the work is customarily done by
specialists and often presents a schedule bottleneck during early FEED. The methods described here, in which rigorous
and verifiable PSV rating and sizing is incorporated within the process modeling environment, can save significant time
and remove these bottlenecks. Techint reported 80% reduction in engineering manhours for PSV sizing, using an earlier
version of this approach (1), while Petrofac (2) reports excellent early results in their testing of the latest version of this
software innovation. Wintershall, working with Inprocess Consultants (3), was able to save 70% of anticipated capital
investment in flares through more accurate safety analysis enabled by dynamic simulation of process loads.
140
120
100
80
Flow Rate
60
Total molar flow (MMSCPO)
40
Flare capacity (MMSCPO)
20
0
10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000
Time (minutes)
Figure 4: Dynamic studies during overpressure protection analysis can achieve reduced CAPEX.
7
Summary
In conclusion, the way organizations are structured and the way process safety analysis is currently conducted can lead to
a slow and inefficient work process. One of the main causes of this is the manual transfer of datafrom process simulators
into spreadsheets and documentation, and between departments. New and improved software tools help to improve the
process of safety analysis in terms of efficiency and accuracy.
References
(1) Llorens, Andres Emilio (2011), Techint, presentation at AspenTech OPTIMIZE Global Conference, May, 2011.
(2) Brodkorp, Michael (2011), Inprocess Consultants, presentation at AspenTech OPTIMIZE Global Conference, May, 2011.
(3) Venkatesh, Lakshmi (2013), Petrofac, AspenTech press release, August, 2011.
8
About AspenTech
AspenTech is a leading supplier of software that optimizes process manufacturingfor energy, chemicals,
engineering and construction, and other industries that manufacture and produce products from a
chemical process. With integrated aspenONE solutions, process manufacturers can implement best
practices for optimizing their engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain operations. As a result,
AspenTech customers are better able to increase capacity, improve margins, reduce costs, and become
more energy efficient. To see how the worlds leading process manufacturers rely on AspenTech to
achieve their operational excellence goals, visit www.aspentech.com.
Worldwide Headquarters
Aspen Technology, Inc.
200 Wheeler Road
Burlington, MA 01803
United States
phone: +17812216400
fax: +17812216410
info@aspentech.com
Regional Headquarters
Houston, TX | USA
phone: +12815841000
So Paulo | Brazil
phone: +551134436261
Reading | United Kingdom
phone: +44(0)1189226400
Singapore | Republic of Singapore
phone: +6563953900
Manama | Bahrain
phone: +97317503000
2014 Aspen Technology, Inc. AspenTech, aspenONE, the Aspen leaf logo, the aspenONE logo, and OPTIMIZE are trademarks of Aspen For a complete list of offices, please visit
Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. 11-5547-0414 www.aspentech.com/locations

11-5547 Gas Processing White Paper

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

11-5547 Gas Processing White Paper

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Process Modeling Innovations Achieve

Safer Operations and Reduced Compliance Risk

Key Engineering Challenges

Key design factors include:

Considering Discharge Systems

Steps in Analyzing Overpressure Protection

Problems in Current Safety Analysis Workflow

Systematic Overpressure Protection Analysis

Figure 1: The Overpressure Protection Safety Analysis Work Flow

Improving the Safety Analysis Workflow

Recent Software Innovations

Add PSVs to Process Model Specify PSV Restraints

Improved Workflow for Ovepressure Protection Design

Header 2 Con 2 Tip

Examples of Benefits Achieved

Вам также может понравиться